IssueRaiser

The crucial difference is that this is not a child but more like a robot specifically designed to operate in a certain way for profit.

The crucial difference is that this is not a child but more like a robot specifically designed to operate in a certain way for profit. Sadly this robot cannot swim, and its owners are scrambling to make swimming illegal, keeping their robot afloat with ugly floaters, or <insert other analogy>. Meanwhile, if we were to let the robot sink to the bottom, the actual creators of the robot, who have a passion for robotics, will find ways to create a robot that swims, and will love doing it. Might it hurt them in the short run? Yes, and I'm all for working hard at solutions to that problem (basic income perhaps? But that's a whole other issue). But in the long run these creators can and have found ways around these problems. We see some of this in music and gaming, and it's already happening in 'publishing' (individual journalists and writers finding ways to get profit&#x2F;donations, blendle.com, certain paywalled publications, etc.) But I for one am tired of working hard at a beautiful site for an 'owner' and then working even harder at turning the end result into a slow, ad-infested, privacy-invading mess. The sooner that solutions are 'forced' into existence, the more likely it will be that I can build profitable things that are not crap. And I've spoken to many journalists and musicians who feel the same way.

Posted by mercer on Jun 11, 2015, 8:30 AM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,000 issues0 comments

hackernews (Other)

The crucial difference is that this is not a child but more like a robot specifically designed to operate in a certain way for profit.

mercerJun 11, 2015, 8:30 AM

The crucial difference is that this is not a child but more like a robot specifically designed to operate in a certain way for profit. Sadly this robot cannot swim, and its owners are scrambling to make swimming illegal, keeping their robot afloat with ugly floaters, or <insert other analogy>. Meanwhile, if we were to let the robot sink to the bottom, the actual creators of the robot, who have a passion for robotics, will find ways to create a robot that swims, and will love doing it. Might it hurt them in the short run? Yes, and I'm all for working hard at solutions to that problem (basic income perhaps? But that's a whole other issue). But in the long run these creators can and have found ways around these problems. We see some of this in music and gaming, and it's already happening in 'publishing' (individual journalists and writers finding ways to get profit&#x2F;donations, blendle.com, certain paywalled publications, etc.) But I for one am tired of working hard at a beautiful site for an 'owner' and then working even harder at turning the end result into a slow, ad-infested, privacy-invading mess. The sooner that solutions are 'forced' into existence, the more likely it will be that I can build profitable things that are not crap. And I've spoken to many journalists and musicians who feel the same way.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue